Tea Party Troops Protest Syria Strike On Facebook

[Revoltingest]

I never heard Obama or anyone calling for war. Just the usual missile sniping when necessary. This is a humanitarian issue, not a war issue. America is viewed as the nation that stands up first and is respected for that. Which is why it was important to make sure that a strike would be imminent.

So launching missiles to attack a foreign government's leader isn't "war"?
There must be some very tortured rationalizing behind that view!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You artfully deflect a criticism of Obama by pointing out the other presidents are bad.

All presidents have their bad traits. No matter which party. I believe I said that back then.

Since I'm not one of the Big Two (unlike you), I've no use for your lame excuses & deflection.

Oh please....don't act as if libertarians are above reproach. People are people regardless of party affiliation.

In this case, you want to talk about faults of some TP members, generalize it to the whole group, & ignore the universality of the faults.

What generalization? I gave you an article to a "specific" tea partier "on the dole" by the tune of $3 and a half million dollars and another article citing at least 23 others. I was specific. And I've also said that all parties get some form of government handouts....That includes many democrats, many republicans, many independents as well as many of the Kentucky constituents on behalf of successful lobbying by Rand Paul (is he still considered a libertarian..?.).

I find this to be brazen & empty demonization.

Duly noted..

 

[esmith]

I never heard Obama or anyone calling for war. Just the usual missile sniping when necessary. This is a humanitarian issue, not a war issue. America is viewed as the nation that stands up first and is respected for that. Which is why it was important to make sure that a strike would be imminent.

So launching missiles to attack a foreign government's leader isn't "war"?
There must be some very tortured rationalizing behind that view!

Nothing rational just irrational, I am fairly certain that tytlyf doesn't consider it an act of war because Obama is advocating a missile strike.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Nothing rational just irrational, I am fairly certain that tytlyf doesn't consider it an act of war because Obama is advocating a missile strike.

It definitely is an act of war. I'm not sure how or why it's being viewed or presented any other way.

I'm so hoping a majority in congress say NO!.....

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh please....don't act as if libertarians are above reproach. People are people regardless of party affiliation.

You infer incorrectly. You can deduce from my posts that I believe libertarians
(usually human) have all the strengths & weaknesses that everyone else has.

What generalization? I gave you an article to a "specific" tea partier "on the dole" by the tune of $3 and a half million dollars and another article citing at least 23 others. I was specific. And I've also said that all parties get some form of government handouts....That includes many democrats, many republicans, many independents as well as many of the Kentucky constituents on behalf of successful lobbying by Rand Paul (is he still considered a libertarian..?.).

You'd have to ask Rand Paul what he considers himself. But I haven't called him one
of us. I'd have to look into his beliefs, but I thought he was more of a conservative.

 

[tytlyf]

Nothing rational just irrational, I am fairly certain that tytlyf doesn't consider it an act of war because Obama is advocating a missile strike.

I've already told you a missile strike is an 'act of war.' No one is denying that.
The problem is the mindset that people think this is a full out war being called for. Which it isn't.
This is a humanitarian issue for earth.

 

[esmith]

I've already told you a missile strike is an 'act of war.' No one is denying that.
The problem is the mindset that people think this is a full out war being called for. Which it isn't.
This is a humanitarian issue for earth.

If you say this is an act of war then Obama should be impeached because only Congress can declare war. Or are you saying it is an act of war without declaring war? How can you have an act of war without a war and without Congress declaring war, that is unless it is a Obama act of war not a Congressional act of war which means that Obama will declare war on Syria by committing an act of war without Congressional declaring war which means it is a act-of-war-of-an-undeclared-war. So we now have a new word Obamaactofwarofaundeclaredwar

 

[Falvlun]

If you say this is an act of war then Obama should be impeached because only Congress can declare war. Or are you saying it is an act of war without declaring war? How can you have an act of war without a war and without Congress declaring war, that is unless it is a Obama act of war not a Congressional act of war which means that Obama will declare war on Syria by committing an act of war without Congressional declaring war which means it is a act-of-war-of-an-undeclared-war. So we now have a new word Obamaactofwarofaundeclaredwar

Oh, get off it. It is well within presidential powers to do a limited strike.

Obama didn't need to get Congressional authorization. The fact that he did shows he isn't this power hungry war monger you'd love to make him out to be. Additionally, the fact that the sort of resolution put to Congress is exceedingly limited in scope-- it's not an open ended engagement-- shows that he's actually giving up power that would be his if he had wanted to use it.

Obama is doing everything right. I may not agree with his desire to strike Syria, but I certainly applaud the way he's going about it. This thoughtful, prudent, democratic approach is exactly what I want in a president.

 

[Aquitaine]

Kerry needs to just chill out and stop being such a grouch to Assad.

Let them be fwends again!

 

[tytlyf]

If you say this is an act of war then Obama should be impeached because only Congress can declare war.

It is an act of war, it is not declaring war.

Or are you saying it is an act of war without declaring war? How can you have an act of war without a war and without Congress declaring war, that is unless it is a Obama act of war not a Congressional act of war which means that Obama will declare war on Syria by committing an act of war without Congressional declaring war which means it is a act-of-war-of-an-undeclared-war. So we now have a new word Obamaactofwarofaundeclaredwar

A missile strike is defined as an act of war. Declaring war is different.
Why would you be so naive to think a single missile strike is a declaration of war?

 

[esmith]

Oh, get off it. It is well within presidential powers to do a limited strike.

I do believe you are wrong and I will attempt to explain it. The following excerpts are from The Authority to 'Declare War': A Power Barack Obama Does Not Have - Garrett Epps - The Atlantic

American presidents have also used force, without consulting Congress, to fulfill American treaty obligations. The most famous example was President Harry Truman's decision to commit American troops to the war in Korea without requesting authorization even after the fact. Truman argued that he was obliged, under the U.N. Charter and a Security Council resolution, to come to the aid of South Korea, and that that obligation superseded Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 11 President George H.W. Bush, in seeking authorization for the first Gulf War, claimed that he did not need it, because of a Security Council resolution authorizing action against Kuwait. (The bluff worked, and Congress approved the war.) President Bill Clinton committed U.S. forces to intervention in the former Yugoslavia, and never sought authorization. In Kosovo, there was no Security Council resolution, but Clinton claimed to be acting under the NATO Treaty and at the request of the other nations of the Balkans.
How do these precedents apply to Syria? Not well. First, the crisis is undoubtedly an emergency -- but it is not an emergency that demands presidential action within minutes or hours. The U.S. is preparing in deliberate, even stately, fashion for a carefully choreographed attack on Syria; there's plenty of time for the president to invoke the "extraordinary occasions" language of Art 2 Sec 3 and convene a special session of Congress.
Internationally, a strike against Syria would go well beyond the flimsy justification offered even for Kosovo. The Security Council has not authorized action against Syria, and will not. Even with U.N. personnel producing the evidence that the Damascus regime has used chemical weapons, the U.S. apparently does not plan even to ask for permission to use force. The nations in the Middle East region have not asked for U.S. intervention. NATO does not support it -- and for heaven's sake, not even Britain will stand with the U.S.
To sum up: U.S. citizens and military personnel are not under attack. It is not a split-second emergency. The President does not face a request from the Security Council, NATO, the Arab League or even the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States.
This is precisely the kind of situation for which the Framers of our Constitution designed its division of authority between President and Congress. Sending our missiles against Syria is an act of war. If it is to be done, Congress, not the president, should approve.

Now the War Powers Act of 1973 basically says the following:

The War Powers Resolution, generally known as the War Powers Act, was passed by Congress over President Nixon's veto to increase congressional control over the executive branch in foreign policy matters, specifically in regard to military actions short of formally declared war. Its central provision prohibited the President from engaging in military actions for more than sixty days, unless Congress voted approval. The key Section 1541(c) reads:

• (c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Now does the circumstances occurring in Syria and the desire of President Obama to strike Syria meet the requirements of any of the above?

 

[tytlyf]

You're referencing past episodes concerning the military. Each of those consisted of committing boots on the ground. How do you draw the comparison with Syria when no boots are proposed?

 

[tomato1236]

The soldiers need to realize that no matter what their opinion, Obama, as POTUS is the Commander-in-Chief and ultimately the final decision lies with him.

Funny how these soldiers blindly followed Bush into Iraq by the thousands. Fire some cruise missiles, outrage. Mind you, of all the reasons to protest war, standing up to a brutal, unelected dictator who uses Chemical weapons against his own people seems like an odd time to start.

I don't know why the soldiers are complaining in this particular instance. Besides, at this point the government isn't even planning to deploy troops into Syria. At most it will probably be airstrikes and maybe launching a few skuds from the mediterranean.

In addition to repeating the questions raised by Revoltingest here, I would also say that constitutionally, the decision lies with congress. The president claims authority to do what he wants alone, and he has that authority through the interpretation of post-constitutional legislation; however congress is the body responsible for declaring war.

Also, I would say that soldiers had more fervor entering Iraq, because they were acting in response to an attack on the nation. Since then, we've learned that they went to Iraq based on a lie. So not only is a (probable) escalation in Syria not in defense of the country, soldiers also now have the hindsight to see that only a decade ago, their president sent them to die for a lie. And if it's been done before, and so recently, then skepticism is valid.

 

[esmith]

You're referencing past episodes concerning the military. Each of those consisted of committing boots on the ground. How do you draw the comparison with Syria when no boots are proposed?

I do not know where your getting this idea that there has to be troops committed onto foreign soil that makes a difference. Show me in any documentation that differentiates whether ground troops are committed or not. I think you are grasping at straws and have absolutely zero basis for you assumptions.

 

[esmith]

In addition to repeating the questions raised by Revoltingest here, I would also say that constitutionally, the decision lies with congress. The president claims authority to do what he wants alone, and he has that authority through the interpretation of post-constitutional legislation; however congress is the body responsible for declaring war.

If you are using the War Powers Act to justify President Obama's decision to unilaterally attack Syria without Congressional approval I think you are mistaken
According to War Power Act of 1973
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

War Powers Act 1973

Purpose and Policy
Sec. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war , (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces

 

[DallasApple]

It seems like people are complaining at this point about nothing.

 

[DallasApple]

If you are using the War Powers Act to justify President Obama's decision to unilaterally attack Syria without Congressional approval I think you are mistaken
According to War Power Act of 1973

When did President Obama attack Syria? Have I missed something in the news?

 

[Tarheeler]

It seems like people are complaining at this point about nothing.

but...but...but it's Obama!!!

 

[DallasApple]

but...but...but it's Obama!!!

I know its horrible...Can you believe he had the nerve to do that???

 

[Revoltingest]

When did President Obama attack Syria? Have I missed something in the news?

The discussion is about his threat to attack Syria.